To: | JDA eHealth Systems, Inc. (mandy@dormanbell.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88583676 - PDB - N/A |
Sent: | November 26, 2019 10:36:37 AM |
Sent As: | ecom101@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 Attachment - 21 Attachment - 22 Attachment - 23 Attachment - 24 Attachment - 25 Attachment - 26 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88583676
Mark: PDB
|
|
Correspondence Address: 5800 E. CAMPUS CIRCLE, STE. 208A
|
|
Applicant: JDA eHealth Systems, Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION
The USPTO must receive applicant’s response to this letter within six months of the issue date below or the application will be abandoned. Respond using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action.
Issue date: November 26, 2019
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
SEARCH OF OFFICE’S DATABASE OF MARKS
The trademark examining attorney has searched the Office’s database of registered and pending marks and has found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d). TMEP §704.02; see 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).
SECTION 2(e)(1) –DESCRIPTIVENESS REFUSAL
Applicant seeks registration of the mark PDB for “Software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software for accounting and data management of customer information.”
An abbreviation, initialism, or acronym is merely descriptive when it is generally understood as “substantially synonymous” with the descriptive words it represents. See In re Thomas Nelson, Inc., 97 USPQ2d 1712, 1715 (TTAB 2011) (citing Modern Optics, Inc. v. Univis Lens Co., 234 F.2d 504, 506, 110 USPQ 293, 295 (C.C.P.A. 1956)) (holding NKJV substantially synonymous with merely descriptive term “New King James Version” and thus merely descriptive of bibles); In re BetaBatt Inc., 89 USPQ2d 1152, 1155 (TTAB 2008) (holding DEC substantially synonymous with merely descriptive term “direct energy conversion” and thus merely descriptive of a type of batteries and battery related services); TMEP §1209.03(h).
Furthermore, a mark consisting of an abbreviation, initialism, or acronym will be considered substantially synonymous with descriptive wording if:
(1) the applied-for mark is an abbreviation, initialism, or acronym for specific wording;
(2) the specific wording is merely descriptive of applicant’s goods and/or services; and
(3) a relevant consumer viewing the abbreviation, initialism, or acronym in connection with applicant’s goods and/or services will recognize it as the equivalent of the merely descriptive wording it represents.
TMEP §1209.03(h); see In re Thomas Nelson, Inc., 97 USPQ2d at 1715-16 (citing In re Harco Corp., 220 USPQ 1075, 1076 (TTAB 1984)).
In the present case, the applicant’s mark “PDB” is the recognized acronym for the wording “parallel database.” A parallel database rendered via systems, hardware and/or servers enable multiple operations to be performed through a single shared database. Therefore, the applied-for mark describes the feature of the software of performing accounting and data management of customer information via a parallel database. The specimen of use clearly supports the descriptiveness of the mark. It discusses the ability of the software services to perform many operations sharing a single database. In further support, attached is Internet evidence discussing what a parallel database is and showing third-party usage and usage by the applicant of the acronym “PDB” for “parallel database.” The evidence was found with the GOOGLE® search engine at the following:
Parallel Database;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_database; viewed Nov. 25, 2019 at 2:15 p.m. E.S. T.
(“A parallel database system seeks to improve performance through parallelization of various operations, such as loading data, building indexes and evaluating queries.”)
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/A58617_01/server.804/a58238/ch1_unde.htm#2934
(“What Is a Parallel Database? A variety of hardware architectures allow multiple computers to share access to data, software, or peripheral devices. A parallel database is designed to take advantage of such architectures by running multiple instances which "share" a single physical database. In appropriate applications, a parallel server can allow access to a single database by users on multiple machines, with increased performance.”)
http://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/csliu/2009/10/20/parallel-dbms-v-s-distributed-dbms/
(“Parallel DBMS V.S. Distributed DBMS… “Parallel Database System seeks to improve performance through parallelization of various operations, such as data loading, index building and query evaluating…PDB & DDB Comparison”)
http://patents.google.com/patent/US5634125
(In a Parallel Database (PDB) System, data records are partitioned into data structures hereinafter referred to as "buckets.”)
http://www.bluewater.net/it-si.htm
(“Managed the migration, installation, test and integration of legacy mainframe database systems into a 3 tiered network of heterogeneous workstations and Sun's Oracle PDB. (parallel database) servers.”)
http://www.dba-oracle.com/real_application_clusters_rac_grid/pdb.html
(“Parallel Databases typically contain multiple nodes or servers accessing the same physical storage or data concurrently. PDB Architecture allows multi-server data sharing technology, allowing direct concurrent read/write access to shared data from all the processing nodes in the parallel configuration.”)
http://www.parathon.com/reduce-denials-by-34-with-our-denial-worklists.html
(“Parathon has a unique methodology that includes the first and most comprehensive Parallel Database (“PDB”) that holds all of your information and manages your Denials eliminating the need to create unique interfaces for each of your agencies.”)
It may be that the term “PDB” has other meanings in other contexts. However, determining the descriptiveness of a mark is done in relation to an applicant’s goods and/or services, the context in which the mark is being used, and the possible significance the mark would have to the average purchaser because of the manner of its use or intended use. See In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 963-64, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); TMEP §1209.01(b). Descriptiveness of a mark is not considered in the abstract. In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d at 963-64, 82 USPQ2d at 1831.
“That a term may have other meanings in different contexts is not controlling.” In re Franklin Cnty. Historical Soc’y, 104 USPQ2d 1085, 1087 (TTAB 2012) (citing In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979)); TMEP §1209.03(e). “It is well settled that so long as any one of the meanings of a term is descriptive, the term may be considered to be merely descriptive.” In re Mueller Sports Med., Inc., 126 USPQ2d 1584, 1590 (TTAB 2018) (quoting In re Chopper Indus., 222 USPQ 258, 259 (TTAB 1984)).
It may also be that applicant’s software services feature technology that is unique, proprietary and/or the first of its kind. However, this fact is irrelevant to the descriptiveness analysis. A unique, proprietary and/or first of its kind parallel database, i.e. PDA, is still fundamentally a parallel database. “A mark may be merely descriptive even if it does not describe the ‘full scope and extent’ of the applicant’s goods or services.” In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1346, 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001)); TMEP §1209.01(b). It is enough if a mark describes only one significant function, attribute, or property. In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §1209.01(b); see In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d at 1173, 71 USPQ2d at 1371.
The applicant is basically seeking exclusive federal trademark rights to a term that is already recognized and used by third-parties in relation to a parallel database.
Based on the foregoing, registration is refused under Trademark Act, Section 2(e)(1).
The applicant should also note the following additional grounds for refusal.
SPECIMEN OF USE REFUSAL
An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each international class of goods and/or services identified in the application or amendment to allege use. 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).
Examples of specimens for services include advertising and marketing materials, brochures, photographs of business signage and billboards, and webpages that show the mark used in the actual sale, rendering, or advertising of the services. See TMEP §1301.04(a), (h)(iv)(C). Specimens comprising advertising and promotional materials must show a direct association between the mark and the services. TMEP §1301.04(f)(ii).
Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class:
(1) Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the goods and/or services identified in the application or amendment to allege use. A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.” The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement.
(2) Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b), for which no specimen is required. This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements such as providing a specimen.
For an overview of both response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy either option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/law/specimen.jsp.
CLOSING
Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action. Although the trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action. See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. Although the USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be included in the application record. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.
TEAS PLUS OR TEAS REDUCED FEE (TEAS RF) APPLICANTS – TO MAINTAIN LOWER FEE, ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET, INCLUDING SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS ONLINE: Applicants who filed their application online using the lower-fee TEAS Plus or TEAS RF application form must (1) file certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to Office actions (see TMEP §§819.02(b), 820.02(b) for a complete list of these documents); (2) maintain a valid e-mail correspondence address; and (3) agree to receive correspondence from the USPTO by e-mail throughout the prosecution of the application. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.22(b), 2.23(b); TMEP §§819, 820. TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional processing fee of $125 per class of goods and/or services. 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(v), 2.22(c), 2.23(c); TMEP §§819.04, 820.04. However, in certain situations, TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants may respond to an Office action by authorizing an examiner’s amendment by telephone or e-mail without incurring this additional fee.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Jean H. Im/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 101
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
571-272-9303
jean.im@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE